I am a little chagrined to see the small number of States which have undertaken legislation in this field. I feel that it is necessary that we force additional legislation.

I previously mentioned the apparent loophole for federally run camps that are not on Federal property. I noticed that the bill does cover Federal camps on Federal property, but the standard practice, at least in New York, is for the Federal Government to arrange for rental of either State or private property and then operating a camp, and we have had some difficulty with jurisdiction here where the people have claimed we don't have jurisdiction, and we feel we do even though it is a Federal agency that may run it, it is not a Federal operation in its entirety.

I feel that this should be made clear in the legislation.

Mr. DANIELS. Is that what you made reference to before-the community action program?

Mr. GATES. Right, a community action program or, something of this nature.

Mr. DANIELS. Sponsoring a vacation at camp.

Mr. GATES. Right. What was done in the past was a takeover of the camp by such a program, and the camp personnel were not utilized at all by the agency taking it over, they provided their own personnel to run the operation, and unfortunately, some of these people had little or no experience in camping.

As a result, situations occurred, such as counselors deciding they wanted private quarters and shoving the children that should have been in two bunks, into one so they could have the other bunk for their own purposes and things of this nature which we would consider hazardous situations. There was at least one instance where there was not room to walk between the bunks, you had to crawl across all the bunks to get into the bedroom.

Now, this is the type of thing we did see in the one case.

Mr. DANIELS. Well, you could do that by regulation, you wouldn't necessarily have to incorporate it into the law.

Mr. GATES. No. My only point is that I would like to make it clear that the law covers children's camp operations regardless of who runs the camp. There should be no question that just because a camp is operated by a Federal agency or by a person under contract with a Federal agency that they can slip out from under a regulation that may be a State regulation.

Mr. DANIELS. I am glad you brought that point to our attention and the committee will give it consideration and study. That probably is a weakness in the present legislation.

Mr. GATES. The other item which I would like to propose is that in the Camp Advisory Committee, that you call for in your bill, I feel that users or parents should be represented on that committee. I mentioned the same thing with respect to our legislation and was unable to get it through, but I feel that a committee consisting only of camp operators tends to be a little bit one sided in some cases. I feel that the parents or the users should be on the committee as well.

Mr. DANIELS. How about camping associations like the American Camping Association?

Mr. GATES. Oh, definitely.

Mr. DANIELS. The Boy Scouts of America send thousands of boys to camp as well as the Girl Scouts.

Mr. GATES. Yes. This adequately covered in the legislation and this is definitely necessary. I feel that they should be provided for on the committee.

It might be desirable to have a representative from a State agency on the committee also, such as myself, who nas had a lot of experience in the regulation of camps throughout the State. This might also be desirable to broaden the committee and to broaden its representation.

Under the Imminent Dangers section on page 12 there is an item that I would like to see revised if possible. The statement is made that the inspector should inform the affected campers, the camp owner and camp supervisory personnel.

There is no question about the camp owner and supervisory personnel being notified, but I feel it is more important that the parents be notified than the campers themselves. To tell a 6-year-old that he is in imminent hazard for his life at a camp is, in my opinion, not the proper thing to do. The supervisory personnel and the child's parents should be notified, but to alarm the children uznecessarily or to alarm them necessarily, even, of that age could be a serious problem in itself, and I feel that rather than mandating that the inspector tell every child in camp that he is in hazard for his life, that parents should be notified. I would like to see that change.

Mr. DANIELS. I take it that you mean that a child, if he is in imminent danger, should not be notified?

Mr. GATES. No. I feel that there could be a problem with doing that and the child just might run out of camp, or something like this. I believe it would be better to notify camp supervisory per sonnel that the legal action is being taken and the condition is going to be corrected one way or another and then notify them that you are going to tell all the parents, and any parent worth his salt is going to be up there very rapidly to get that child out of camp. I don't feel that alarming the child by trying to explain to a 6-yearold or an 8-year-old, or what-have-you, is the proper approach.

Mr. DANIELS. Some of these kids are pretty smart even at age 6. I have a grandson about 6 or 7 years of age and I am quite sure that if he were to go to camp and he was told about something of an imminent danger present, that he would be concerned about his own safety. He might go to the phone and call his mother up and notify his mother sooner than the camp might.

Mr. GATES. Well, the one problem that we have in some camps. not in many camps, there is a lack of communication of that nature. They make it a little bit difficult for a child to do that without running off the camp property, and this is done purposely because they don't want the child on the phone every day to his mothertype-of-thing.

Mr. DANIELS. Well, we can honestly disagree on that question. Mr. GATES. OK. The other item that I would like to bring to your attention, the section of variances, I feel, is a li ttle broader than

possibly it should be. It indicates that the variance could be issued if the camp was as safe and healthful as though it complied with the standard.

It kind of implies that the standard by Health, Education and Welfare, whoever is going to issue the standard, is not necessary at the camp.

I think this wording is a little bit too broad. I think there is a need for a variance provision, but I don't think it should be worded in such a manner that you have to approve that the place is just as safe and just as healthful by not complying as if you did comply. I think the wording should be such that no imminent hazard exists or that no obvious health hazard of safety hazard exists, or something of that nature.

I think that this tends to be a little bit too broad and could be a major loophole.

Mr. DANIELS. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony. It indeed is beneficial and helpful to this committee. We enjoyed having you here, Mr. Gates.

I now call upon my colleague from New York, Mr. Peyser. Do you have any questions?

Mr. PEYSER. Yes. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Mr. Gates, who I know played a key role in drawing the legislation involved in the New York State law and we appreciate the efforts that you have put into this.

How many inspectors does New York State have for the summer camp program?

Mr. GATES. The way the program is conducted in New York State, we have a total of 10,000 places statewide that are inspected by various health department personnel. This includes all hotels, motels, children's camps, et cetera.

Of the total that I mentioned, 762 are children's camps, The inspections are conducted by State offices handling two or more counties, or by county health departments which would handle an entire county's operation. The personnel work on the camp program during the month of June for the preseason inspection, possibly May, during July and August for the actual inspection during the rest of the year they are working on actual programs so it is a little bit difficult to give you a specific answer as to just how many people are working on the program. We have 49 different offices making inspections, and there is at least one man in each of those offices making this kind of inspection.

In some areas such as the Catskills or the Adirondack area, we have four or five men in the office making the inspections. We probably have a staff of at least 100 people doing this type of work at one time or another, and in order to augment the staff we do hire during the summer, 45 to 50 camp sanitary aides, who are normally school teachers on summer vacation who come to work for us for the specific purpose of inspection.

Mr. PEYSER. When you say, "camp sanitary aides and the other people who are inspecting," I have the feeling, and I am very pleased with New York State having moved forward on this legislation, but I have some serious misgivings of what is happening with the legislation.

The sanitation aspect of it, are most of these inspectors oriented to sanitation? It is my belief they are. Now, you tell me whether I am wrong.

Mr. GATES. In order to implement the new legislation we do annually run training sessions, and we recently ran one in Utica where we had an attendance of 65 people to train them in the fire aspects and in the other aspects of the regulations.

Now, the way we handle the program, the preseason inspection. and at least one of the other inspections, is done by a permanent person who is on the payroll all year long.

I would have to agree with you, that the temporary people we hire, the camp sanitary aides, are more attuned to the sanitation aspects and we try and utilize them for the followup situations. In other words, if a violation has already been documented by our permanent personnel that the doors on a building, for instance, open in the wrong direction, we don't have to necessarily send a college graduate with 15 years experience out to check if the doors have been rehung or not, we can send an inspector out, and we do try to do this.

But we are this year trying to have all camps inspected by permanent personnel who have been trained in all aspects of the code. This has been a problem in the past because of lack of funds on a State level, and also in some instances the lack of priority. The migrant labor program, for instance, has traditionally had a little more priority than this program.

Mr. PEYSER. May I ask you a question? Based on the law and the inspection procedure that you have spoken of, is it safe to assume that you have 762 reports of last year's inspections? In other words, when an inspector makes an inspection does he file a report with your office?

Mr. GATES. Yes.

Mr. PEYSER. And so you would have

Mr. GATES. We would have probably-well, let me see. Last year we had, I believe, 1.6 inspections per premises, so we would have more than 762 inspections.

Mr. PEYSER. But you would show that every camp of the 762, if that is the number we are dealing with, an inspection was made on that camp?

Mr. GATES. That is correct.

Mr. PEYSER. What I am suggesting, and I would like to be corrected, but I am just putting it this way, is I am saying that inspection for those 762 camps primarily dealt with the sanitary condition of those camps and not with other aspects of camp safety? Mr. GATES. I don't think I brought with me unfortunately, the actual inspection sheet that we would use, but the inspection is broader than just looking at water, sewage, and food service, et cetera, We do and we always have looked at the adequacy of fire exits. It is a checkoff type of inspection sheet which I will be happy to send to you, and this sheet does have some limitations in it. Realizing this, we have developed a new sheet which we are using on a trial basis this year which goes into specfiic detail on a lot more items to make sure the inspector looks at just the type of thing you are questioning.

Mr. DANIELS. We would like to see a copy of that, if we could, for the record.

Mr. GATES. I will be happy to forward that to you.

Mr. PEYSER. Now, concerning the fire question, which is certainly of the utmost importance because this has been involved in a number of incidence around the country, your inspectors are the ones who make that fire check. Is that right?

Mr. GATES. Our inspectors are responsible for making the check, and if there is a question about the adequacy, we deal with the local fire officials or with the State division of local government, which has the overall responsibility for the enforcement of fire codes on a statewide basis. We have called upon the local government people to train our inspectors in the basic inspection procedures. We have also called upon them to make inspections on children's camps where there is a question in the mind of the inspector as to interpretation.

This is a more or less routine procedure that we have established, and when we call up local government we can usually get an inspector down on a property within a few days or a week's time, and a rather complete fire inspection is generally done by the local government people. As a matter of fact, we are going to try to get this done on all two-story buildings next year.

Mr. PEYSER. I do have an interesting statistic for you, and this deals with camps in the southeastern part of the country, and New York is included in this section of the report.

It showed that in sleeping areas, 45 percent of the camps only have one exit in sleeping areas. Sixty-eight percent have no fire extinguishers at all in the sleeping areas. In the kitchen areas, 6 percent have one exit, 76 percent have no marked exits for fire at all. and 21 percent have had no fire extinguishers.

In the dining areas there is only one exit in 6 percent of the camps. Sixty-nine percent had no marked exits at all, and 33 percent had no fire extinguishers.

Now, I bring out those statistics because they are really, I think, pretty terrible, and these are based on on-site inspections. So you have a large percentage of camps in the sleeping, kitchen, and dining areas that evidently have no fire extinguishers, inadequately marked exits or no marked exits, and it obviously would seem that is a basic need that we would have to be sure of, and maybe and hopefully New York State itself does not come into that even though New York State thought of this inspection.

Mr. GATES. It is a problem sometimes to reduce statistics and come up with meaningful results. In New York, for instance, we would require fire protection for the bunks. Now, this would not necessarily mean a fire extinguisher had to be present in every bunk.

Mr. PEYSER. What about in a barracks, or an area where, say, 12 to 20 chilrden were sleeping, wouldn't you require a fire extinguisher?

Mr. GATES. We would require fire protection. Now, we do permit a fire hose where there is good pressure available, we will permit a fire hose and we will permit a fire hose external to the building that might serve two or more buildings if there is sufficient hose there.